Awwww, Hell…Heresy!

Recently, I listened to a 2005 episode of This American Life called “Heretics,” an episode in two acts that follows the rise and subsequent fall of American pastor Bishop Carlton Pearson, an Oral Roberts protégé. After enjoying incredible success as an evangelist, Pearson’s community deserted him in the wake of his decision to start preaching a version of universalism1 that he developed called “The Gospel of Inclusion.” Pearson lit upon his new understanding while watching a television report about violence in Rwanda. During this report he claims to have had a conversation with God who told him that we’d all gotten it wrong.

This post is not about the doctrine of Hell, really. Though, I will say that I happen to believe that Hell exists and that people do need the grace and love of God if they’d like to avoid it.2

Rather, this post is about the very idea of heresy.

The Oxford American Dictionary (OAD) has this to say about heresy: belief or opinion contrary to orthodox religious (esp. Christian) doctrine.

When I look at that definition, one word sticks out as particularly problematic: orthodox. Here’s what OAD has to say about that: (of a person or their views, esp. religious or political ones, or other beliefs or practices) conforming to what is generally or traditionally accepted as right or true; established and approved.

Obviously, what is orthodox for one group can be heretical to another and vice-versa. So, where do we draw the line? Who determines what is really orthodox and what is really heterodox?

Conventional wisdom would tell us that the victors are the one’s who determine orthodoxy. The history of the Christianity is full of victories and triumphs over heretics; one need only skim through Irenaeus’s Adversus haereses to see that this has been the mode of fashion of the church from a very early time period. Really, though, we can go back even further to Paul himself to see this split; Paul frequently writes about people who have turned aside.3

The question I am frequently faced with is this: If orthodoxy is determined by the victor, then is it possible that what we consider “orthodox” is really just a set of teaching determined by aggressive dudes with an agenda who weren’t acting in accordance with the Holy Spirit?

Yes. That’s entirely possible. We can look at just about any major doctrine of the Christian faith and find a battle (sometimes bloody, sometimes not). However, simply because the victors won doesn’t make them wrong.

How then do we go about determining what is orthodox and what is not? The easy answer is Scripture. I say this is easy because some folks are totally satisfied by that. The Bible says so…therefore, it must be. However, the Bible is open to interpretation on multiple fronts. These various interpretation sometimes fall outside of the range of established orthodoxy, and, voila!, we have a controversy. Take Hell for example. There are very few passages which describe how this whole eternal punishment thing works. When the annihilationists and traditionalists go at it, they are often using the same exact passages as proof. The traditionalist says: “Oh yeah? What about Revelation 20?” Then the annihilationist fires back and says: “Yeah! Revelation 20 proves my point!” The epic smackdown that ensues is fueled by differing interpretations of the same exact chunks of Scripture!

The harder answer to our question is this: “I don’t know.” Early Christians talk about the “canon of faith.” This idea is developed thoroughly by Father John Behr in his book The Way to Nicaea. In Greek the word kanōn (κανών) means rule, limit, or principle. This is what a carpenter would use to make things straight — it’s a guide. The canon of faith then are the principles, the guides, the limits, the rules that keep things inbounds. This canon for the early church consisted largely of their new interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in the new light of Christ. In a post-Christ world, these radicals flipped the script on the Hebrew Bible and found it to be the precursor to Christ, a record of all the events that foreshadowed and announced his appearance.

How do we get our hand on this canon of faith? Again, this is all troubling. I’ve already meandered through several pages here, and I don’t have any answers for you other than this:

Careful reading/exegesis of the Bible.

Being receptive to the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Where then do we put Carlton Pearson? He’s a guy who knows the Bible extremely well, and yet he says his 180 on the existence of Hell is a reaction to God speaking directly to him.4 Is this guy a heretic? Is he a brother in Christ? Is he, as my Jesuit friends would say, amongst the “separated brethren”? Or, is he a heretic who deserves excommunication? Do heretics deserve punishment at all, or should we simply rebuke and love them and accept them into our fold?

This is the most dissatisfying post ever. Not only is it long and rambling, but I have come to no conclusions other than this:

Footnotes

Universalism, or universal reconciliation, is a doctrine that claims that all humans will reach salvation (i.e., heaven) because of the infinite love and mercy of God. It is considered heretical by most mainline denominations. ↩

What happens to people who never hear the Gospel? I don’t know. I’d be speculating wouldn’t I? I’ll leave it to God to do the just thing. I will say here, however, that I have lately been interested in some arguments made by Edward Fudge which support an annihilationist perspective. In some very careful, thoroughgoing exegesis in his book, The Fire That Consumes, Fudge attempts to argue that the traditional perspective that damned souls suffer ongoing, eternal, conscious punishment in Hell may not be the most biblical perspective. Rather, Fudge argues that a soul is annihilated, utterly destroyed, on the day of judgment. If you’re really interested in this topic, you can pick up The Fire That Consumes, and I’m also told that Two Views of Hell is worth a look. Not sure how I feel about all of this, but I think it’s worth investigating. ↩

Recently, I have been reading 2 Timothy in which Paul (yes, I realize the authorship of this letter is disputed) mentions folks that have turned aside from the gospel he preached. This is just one example of many in the Pauline canon. ↩

After writing this sentence, I realize that in a post-Englightenment, post-modern, and potentially post-postmodern age, the idea of God speaking to someone might sound crazy. I don’t think for a moment that Carlton Pearson is insane. I just don’t. ↩

Stephen, thanks for the honest comments and for mentioning THE FIRE THAT CONSUMES and TWO VIEWS OF HELL. There is a very surprising and informative quiz about hell at http://www.EdwardFudge.com/hellquiz.html and links to interviews, reviews and a video seminar on the subject at http://www.EdwardFudge.com/written/fire.html . By the way, we are neighbors (I also live in Houston — Katy side) … we should have breakfast together sometime!

Excellent post. I think you’ve captured the great dilemma. In addition to whether “victors” necessarily have any authority in establishing orthodoxy, I would also question the precedence that is given to councils presided over by emperors of questionable religious authority, or others.

You know that I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (aka. Mormons). The below account written by Joesph Smith details the circumstances of the religious excitement in his day and how he personally addressed the dilemma of overcoming varying interpretations of the Bible. Responsive to the topic of your post, Joseph’s experience details how an honest seeker of God uncovers the contradictions in “orthodoxy,” and how his personal experience with God is met with accusations of heresy and worse.

(On a separate, but related note, Mormons do not believe in hell in the traditional sense as other Christians.)

While I believe Joseph’s account, please know that I respect your personal beliefs and those of your readers. In fact, I profess the article of faith which states, “We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.” Nevertheless, my love for God, His Son Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, and the truthfulness of the gospel urge me to include the following account for your honest consideration.

EXTRACTS FROM THE HISTORY OF JOSEPH SMITH (BY JOSEPH SMITH), History of the Church, Vol. 1

1 Owing to the many reports which have been put in circulation by evil-disposed and designing persons, in relation to the rise and progress of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, all of which have been designed by the authors thereof to militate against its character as a Church and its progress in the world—I have been induced to write this history, to disabuse the public mind, and put all inquirers after truth in possession of the facts, as they have transpired, in relation both to myself and the Church, so far as I have such facts in my possession.

2 In this history I shall present the various events in relation to this Church, in truth and righteousness, as they have transpired, or as they at present exist, being now [1838] the eighth year since the organization of the said Church.

3 I was born in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and five, on the twenty-third day of December, in the town of Sharon, Windsor county, State of Vermont . . . My father, Joseph Smith, Sen., left the State of Vermont, and moved to Palmyra, Ontario (now Wayne) county, in the State of New York, when I was in my tenth year, or thereabouts. In about four years after my father’s arrival in Palmyra, he moved with his family into Manchester in the same county of Ontario—

5 Sometime in the second year after our removal to Manchester, there was in the place where we lived an unusual excitement on the subject of religion. It commenced with the Methodists, but soon became general among all the sects in that region of country. Indeed, the whole district of country seemed affected by it, and great multitudes united themselves to the different religious parties, which created no small stir and division amongst the people, some crying, “Lo, here!” and others, “Lo, there!” Some were contending for the Methodist faith, some for the Presbyterian, and some for the Baptist.

6 For, notwithstanding the great love which the converts to these different faiths expressed at the time of their conversion, and the great zeal manifested by the respective clergy, who were active in getting up and promoting this extraordinary scene of religious feeling, in order to have everybody converted, as they were pleased to call it, let them join what sect they pleased; yet when the converts began to file off, some to one party and some to another, it was seen that the seemingly good feelings of both the priests and the converts were more pretended than real; for a scene of great confusion and bad feeling ensued—priest contending against priest, and convert against convert; so that all their good feelings one for another, if they ever had any, were entirely lost in a strife of words and a contest about opinions.

7 I was at this time in my fifteenth year. My father’s family was proselyted to the Presbyterian faith, and four of them joined that church, namely, my mother, Lucy; my brothers Hyrum and Samuel Harrison; and my sister Sophronia.

8 During this time of great excitement my mind was called up to serious reflection and great uneasiness; but though my feelings were deep and often poignant, still I kept myself aloof from all these parties, though I attended their several meetings as often as occasion would permit. In process of time my mind became somewhat partial to the Methodist sect, and I felt some desire to be united with them; but so great were the confusion and strife among the different denominations, that it was impossible for a person young as I was, and so unacquainted with men and things, to come to any certain conclusion who was right and who was wrong.

9 My mind at times was greatly excited, the cry and tumult were so great and incessant. The Presbyterians were most decided against the Baptists and Methodists, and used all the powers of both reason and sophistry to prove their errors, or, at least, to make the people think they were in error. On the other hand, the Baptists and Methodists in their turn were equally zealous in endeavoring to establish their own tenets and disprove all others.

10 In the midst of this war of words and tumult of opinions, I often said to myself: What is to be done? Who of all these parties are right; or, are they all wrong together? If any one of them be right, which is it, and how shall I know it?

11 While I was laboring under the extreme difficulties caused by the contests of these parties of religionists, I was one day reading the Epistle of James, first chapter and fifth verse, which reads: If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

12 Never did any passage of scripture come with more power to the heart of man than this did at this time to mine. It seemed to enter with great force into every feeling of my heart. I reflected on it again and again, knowing that if any person needed wisdom from God, I did; for how to act I did not know, and unless I could get more wisdom than I then had, I would never know; for the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible.

13 At length I came to the conclusion that I must either remain in darkness and confusion, or else I must do as James directs, that is, ask of God. I at length came to the determination to “ask of God,” concluding that if he gave wisdom to them that lacked wisdom, and would give liberally, and not upbraid, I might venture.

14 So, in accordance with this, my determination to ask of God, I retired to the woods to make the attempt. It was on the morning of a beautiful, clear day, early in the spring of eighteen hundred and twenty. It was the first time in my life that I had made such an attempt, for amidst all my anxieties I had never as yet made the attempt to pray vocally.

15 After I had retired to the place where I had previously designed to go, having looked around me, and finding myself alone, I kneeled down and began to offer up the desires of my heart to God. I had scarcely done so, when immediately I was seized upon by some power which entirely overcame me, and had such an astonishing influence over me as to bind my tongue so that I could not speak. Thick darkness gathered around me, and it seemed to me for a time as if I were doomed to sudden destruction.

16 But, exerting all my powers to call upon God to deliver me out of the power of this enemy which had seized upon me, and at the very moment when I was ready to sink into despair and abandon myself to destruction—not to an imaginary ruin, but to the power of some actual being from the unseen world, who had such marvelous power as I had never before felt in any being—just at this moment of great alarm, I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me.

17 It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!

18 My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.

19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

20 He again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time. When I came to myself again, I found myself lying on my back, looking up into heaven. When the light had departed, I had no strength; but soon recovering in some degree, I went home. And as I leaned up to the fireplace, mother inquired what the matter was. I replied, “Never mind, all is well—I am well enough off.” I then said to my mother, “I have learned for myself that Presbyterianism is not true.” It seems as though the adversary was aware, at a very early period of my life, that I was destined to prove a disturber and an annoyer of his kingdom; else why should the powers of darkness combine against me? Why the opposition and persecution that arose against me, almost in my infancy?

21 Some few days after I had this vision, I happened to be in company with one of the Methodist preachers, who was very active in the before mentioned religious excitement; and, conversing with him on the subject of religion, I took occasion to give him an account of the vision which I had had. I was greatly surprised at his behavior; he treated my communication not only lightly, but with great contempt, saying it was all of the devil, that there were no such things as visions or revelations in these days; that all such things had ceased with the apostles, and that there would never be any more of them.

22 I soon found, however, that my telling the story had excited a great deal of prejudice against me among professors of religion, and was the cause of great persecution, which continued to increase; and though I was an obscure boy, only between fourteen and fifteen years of age, and my circumstances in life such as to make a boy of no consequence in the world, yet men of high standing would take notice sufficient to excite the public mind against me, and create a bitter persecution; and this was common among all the sects—all united to persecute me.

23 It caused me serious reflection then, and often has since, how very strange it was that an obscure boy, of a little over fourteen years of age, and one, too, who was doomed to the necessity of obtaining a scanty maintenance by his daily labor, should be thought a character of sufficient importance to attract the attention of the great ones of the most popular sects of the day, and in a manner to create in them a spirit of the most bitter persecution and reviling. But strange or not, so it was, and it was often the cause of great sorrow to myself.

24 However, it was nevertheless a fact that I had beheld a vision. I have thought since, that I felt much like Paul, when he made his defense before King Agrippa, and related the account of the vision he had when he saw a light, and heard a voice; but still there were but few who believed him; some said he was dishonest, others said he was mad; and he was ridiculed and reviled. But all this did not destroy the reality of his vision. He had seen a vision, he knew he had, and all the persecution under heaven could not make it otherwise; and though they should persecute him unto death, yet he knew, and would know to his latest breath, that he had both seen a light and heard a voice speaking unto him, and all the world could not make him think or believe otherwise.

25 So it was with me. I had actually seen a light, and in the midst of that light I saw two Personages, and they did in reality speak to me; and though I was hated and persecuted for saying that I had seen a vision, yet it was true; and while they were persecuting me, reviling me, and speaking all manner of evil against me falsely for so saying, I was led to say in my heart: Why persecute me for telling the truth? I have actually seen a vision; and who am I that I can withstand God, or why does the world think to make me deny what I have actually seen? For I had seen a vision; I knew it, and I knew that God knew it, and I could not deny it, neither dared I do it; at least I knew that by so doing I would offend God, and come under condemnation.

26 I had now got my mind satisfied so far as the sectarian world was concerned—that it was not my duty to join with any of them, but to continue as I was until further directed. I had found the testimony of James to be true—that a man who lacked wisdom might ask of God, and obtain, and not be upbraided.

“I’ll leave it to God to do the just thing.” This assumes that justice is the ultimate quality of God, I wonder if we shouldn’t dare to say: I’ll leave it to God to do the loving thing?
.-= Tim Bulkeley’s last blog: "Once were couples" =-.

@ Mr. Fudge — Interesting quiz. Having read chunks of The Fire That Consumes, I did fairly well on your quiz. Hehehe. As for your invitation, I accept. But it will probably have to wait until the summer when I’m not teaching.

@ Mr. Bourgeois — Thanks for the LDS perspective. In no way do I take this material as some sort of intrusion. Ultimately, you and I would disagree on much, but it doesn’t mean that we can’t be friends and keep hashing it out! I do think that Mr. Smith began with a very nice thought: James 1.5.

@ Mr. Bulkeley — Good point re: “ultimate quality.” Being ultimately perfect, is it possible that all of God’s qualities are “ultimate”? I.e., one quality doesn’t trump another, but all of God’s qualities are equal, perfect, and co-existent? OR, would you say that Love is the ultimate quality of God and that all other qualities are contained within Love? OR, would you come at it another way?